Through theoretical application of Vygotsky’s ...

INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

by

Brittany Sullivan

April, 2013

Director of Thesis: Dr. Archana V. Hegde

Major Department: Child Development and Family Relations

The presence of the English Language Learner (ELL) population is ever-increasing in our

Kindergarten-Grade 12 sector. With this influx of students who may need specialized attention,

it is essential for educators and teacher education programs alike to focus on preparation for

serving such a population. While research depicts a lack of training, it also elicits an assumed

responsibility to successfully educate these students. The aims of this study are to: 1) examine

relationships between native-English speaking kindergarten teachers and ELL and Non-ELL

children within their own classroom and 2) examine if native-English speaking kindergarten

teachers differ in their interactions with ELL and Non-ELL children within their own

classrooms. Through theoretical application of Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory and

Bronfrenbrenner’s Ecological Systems theory, classrooms in Eastern North Carolina were

surveyed, using a demographics survey and the Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS), and

observed, using the Emerging Academics Snapshot, EAS, to determine the process quality of

each classroom and the relationships that teachers maintain with their ELL students. Analysis

found that differences in teachers’ relationships with ELL and Non-ELL students did exist;

however, parameters of interaction were not significantly different. The implications of this

study for the field of education and suggestions for future research are also highlighted.

INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Child Development and Family Relations

East Carolina University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

by

Brittany Sullivan

April, 2013

© Brittany Sullivan, 2013

INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS AND

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

by

Brittany Sullivan

APPROVED BY

DIRECTOR OF THESIS: _______________________________________________

Archana V. Hegde, PhD

COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________

Sharon Ballard, PhD

COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________

Anne Ticknor, PhD

CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY RELATIONS

__________________________________________________

Sharon Ballard, PhD, Interim

DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

__________________________________________________

Paul J. Gemperline, PhD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my major advisor, Dr. Archana V. Hegde, and my committee

members Dr. Sharon Ballard and Dr. Anne Ticknor, for providing unfaltering support,

encouragement, and guidance throughout this process. I would also like to thank Juliann Stalls

for her assistance in IRB preparation and ensuring inter-rater reliability in the use of the EAS

measure. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Ract and Abby Lassiter, grandparents, Ted

and Reba Adams, brother, Caleb Lassiter, and boyfriend, Zack Hewett, for their unconditional

love and support before, during, and after this process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 2

Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 3

Sociocultural theory ................................................................................................ 3

Ecological systems theory....................................................................................... 5

Process Quality ................................................................................................................... 7

Challenges in Working with the ELL Population for Teachers .......................................... 8

Programming regarding ELLinstruction ................................................................. 8

Collaboration between educators .......................................................................... 13

Teachers Fostering Relationships with ELL Students ...................................................... 14

Teachers Interacting with ELL Students........................................................................... 15

Ineffective interaction strategies ........................................................................... 17

Effective interaction strategies .............................................................................. 19

Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 23

Sample............................................................................................................................... 23

Measures ........................................................................................................................... 24

Demographics survey............................................................................................ 24

Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) ........................................................ 25

Emerging Academics Snapshot ............................................................................ 25

Establishing Inter-Rater Reliability on Emerging Academics Snapshot ...................................... 25

Protocol Used for Data Collection .................................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 28

Teacher Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 28

Personal teacher characteristics. ........................................................................... 28

Professional teacher characteristics. ..................................................................... 29

Teachers' language exposure .....................................................................29

Teachers' training experiences ................................................................................32

Classroom Characteristics ................................................................................................. 33

Differences in teacher relationships with ELLs and Non-ELLs ....................................... 35

Differences in teacher interactions with ELLs and Non-ELLs ......................................... 35

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 42

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 45

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 47

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 49

APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL .............................. 56

APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY ............................................................................ 59

APPENDIX E: STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS SCALE .......................................... 62

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO INCLUDE EMERGING ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT

CODING TEMPLATES ............................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX G: EMERGING ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT CODEBOOK .................................. 64

APPENDIX H: EMERGENT ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT CODESHEET ................................ 71

LIST OF TABLES

1. Personal Teacher Characteristics of Sample n=19 ................................................................... 30

2. Classroom Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 34

3. Closeness and Conflict Subscale Scores ................................................................................... 36

4. Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups ................................. 39

5. Interactions between Teachers and Male and Female ELL and Male and Female Non-ELL

Student Groups.............................................................................................................................. 40

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Ecological Systems Theory Diagram.......................................................................................... 6

2. Language Exposure Gains ........................................................................................................ 31

3. Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups ................................. 41

4. Gender Specific Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups ....... 41

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

English Learner (EL), English Language Learner (ELL), Limited English Proficient

(LEP), and English as a Second Language (ESL) are all terms used to describe individuals who

do not speak English as their first language and are taking strides to acquire the language. For

the remainder of this writing, English Language Learner (ELL) will be used as the conceptual

definition to describe this group. A driving force behind many changes in United States school

systems is the ELL population (DelliCarpini, 2008). During the period of 1985 through 1991,

the ELL student population increased by 51.3% in K-12 classrooms, to approximately 2.3

million students (Clair, 1995). In the 2003-2004 academic year, 5.5 million students were

considered ELL (Batt, 2008). Although current statistics vary, children who are identified as

ELL presently comprise the largest increase in the K-12 population in the United States (Han &

Bridglall, 2009); eliciting more than 50% of public school teachers to interact with ELL students

(Clair, 1995). This number is on a steady incline as some researchers project that 40% of the

school age population will be ELLs by the year 2030 (DelliCarpini, 2008) and by 2050,

traditional minority groups will no longer be considered minorities (Downer et al., 2012). This

rapid growth of ELL presence in the school system demands attention among mainstream

educators and teacher education programs alike (Batt, 2008).

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

“Educating ESL students is complex, it challenges social, political, and pedagogical

assumptions, it is context specific and dilemma ridden” (Clair, 1995, p. 193). Over 41% of

public school teachers are now responsible for instructing ELLs (Pawan, 2008). Yet, educators

with the knowledge and skills required to work with ELL students are in limited supply (Batt,

2008); and, a resounding notion in current literature is that teachers do not feel adequately

prepared to work with ELL students (Clair, 1995; Curtin, 2005a; Pawan, 2008; Teale, 2009;

Vacca-Rizopoulos & Nicoletti, 2008). In 2005, de Jong and Harper conducted a study that

supported these results; however, revealed that only 12.3% of these teachers had received more

than eight hours of professional development geared toward instructing ELL students. The

preparation that instructors receive for teaching these classrooms leaves much to be desired in

terms of training and confidence; yet, it is assumed to be adequate enough to sustain. With the

proliferation of the ELL population in United States schools, these issues cannot be ignored.

There is a wealth of information in current literature regarding K-12 ELL populations; however,

there is a lack of information geared towards specific interactions between elementary school

populations of ELLs, specifically Kindergarteners, and their teachers; the process quality within

mainstream classrooms; and, the effect this has upon this populations’ language development

once mainstream teachers are given the responsibility of instructing them. Thus, in this

particular study we specifically focus on two dimensions of process quality; interactions and

relationships. The main purpose of this study is to examine kindergarten teachers’ relationships

and interactions between ELL and Non-ELL students.

3

Theoretical Framework

A theory is a set of interconnected ideas that emerge from the process of articulating and

organizing ideas to comprehend a particular event (Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, &

Steinmetz, 1993). According to Robert Pianta (1999), the use of theory offers evidence as to the

effectiveness of an attempt, as well as a guide to important decisions of how to focus strengths

and resources.

Sociocultural theory. While many theories are applicable to the academic aspect of

classrooms, Lev Vygotsky proposed sociocultural theory which posits that children learn through

social interactions (Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986). Vygotsky proposed that humans utilize

tools developed from their cultures, including speech and writing, to mediate their environments

(Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012). Major elements of sociocultural theory note that

children actively seek knowledge through interacting with their environment. This interaction

facilitates development in a culturally modified fashion (Learning Theories Knowledgebase,

2012). As culture has an impact on language as a communication process; language, in turn,

affects both cognitive and social domains of development.

The fact that ELLs are exposed to their native culture at home and a diverse culture at

school impacts their ability to maintain academic learning in the English language (Hammond,

2008b).

The school must allow cultural elements that are relevant to the children to enter the

classroom…thereby enabling the child to move through relevant experiences from the

home toward the demands of the school as representative of a diverse society (Garcia,

1992, p. 82).

4

It is important for teachers to understand that a student’s first language plays an essential role in

the acquisition of a second language; learning a second language is a long and difficult process

and, learners acquire second languages in different ways. Relying too heavily on similarities that

exist between first and second language acquisition may neglect differences between first and

second language learning and the influence they have on successful oral language, literacy

development and academic achievement for ELLs (de Jong & Harper, 2005). Research

demonstrates that cognitive, cultural, and social variables have bearing on knowledge

acquisition, as well as second-language acquisition (August & Garcia, 1998). Teachers must

acknowledge these aspects so that they are able to provide effective assistance to all ELL

students. Ernst-Slavit, Moore, and Maloney (2002) noted that language is best developed in an

assortment of settings that promote talk and interaction; literacy is part of language, thus reading

and writing development is fostered by speaking and listening.

Vygotsky’s theory further postulates the idea of a zone of proximal development (ZPD),

or the expanse between an area of which a child can master a task with the help and instruction,

or scaffolding, of an instructor/parent/guardian or independently (de Jong & Harper, 2005;

Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012; Shabani, Khatib, & Ebadi, 2010). Teachers can

reduce the cognitive, cultural, and language loads that burden students and evaluate their

teaching strategies and approaches by gauging changes in ELLs’ zones of proximal development

(Gibbons, 2003; Gibbons, 2008; Maxwell, 2011; Pawan, 2008). Should teachers effectively use

the information provided by their students’ ZPDs, students’ achievements or failures should not

be viewed as merely resultant of the students’ innate ability or background, but also as the

measure of the context of interactions between teachers and students (Gibbons, 2003). While the

environment of a classroom is dependent upon a number of components, providing tailored

5

support for both students and teachers is vital to help ameliorate the performance of each party

within the classroom (Han & Bridglall, 2009).

Ecological systems theory. Bronfenbrenner proposed ecological systems theory which

posits that all parts of a family are interconnected and cannot be viewed separately (White &

Klein, 2008). The family is viewed as an integrated system and that the system effects and is

effected by the surrounding environment (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Similar to Bronfrenbrenner’s

ecological systems theory, a classroom environment can be viewed as a system that is affected

by various spheres of influences. Those influences include but are not limited to, classroom

characteristics such as the ratio of teachers to students, the education/experience of teachers,

beliefs that the teachers hold, the number of children, and the amount and quality of the

classroom space; characteristics of the school such as financial resources, management styles,

types of programs, and size; regional characteristics such as local regulation, the sub-culture, and

the economic well-being; and, finally the country characteristics that consist of the culture,

regulation, and the economic status (Cryer, Tietze, Burchinal, Leal, & Palacios, 1999). These

levels coincide most accurately with Bronfrenbrenner’s Micro, Meso, Exo, and Macro systems

of ecological systems theory, respectively. These systems can be seen in Figure 1. Equally

important aspects of a child’s life, such as family and community also coincide with

Bronfrenbrenner’s ideas. Additionally, classrooms are described through both structural and

dynamic features that have a significant impact on the processes that occur within each

classroom and are embedded within the various spheres of influence listed previously (Cryer et

al., 1999).

6

Figure 1. Ecological Systems Theory Diagram

7

Process Quality

Process quality is representative of the experience children have in their classrooms,

including but not limited to, the interactions that they have with their teachers and the

activities/materials that are provided to them (Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997).

Tietze, Cryer, Bairrão, Palacios, and Wetzel (1996) list the core elements of process quality as

safe care, healthful care, developmentally appropriate stimulation, positive interaction with

adults, encouragement of individual emotional growth, and promotion of positive relationships

with other children. It is speculated that proximal aspects of classrooms will impact process

quality more so than distal aspects; proximal influences are structural variables that are present in

the classroom, such as teacher characteristics (Cryer et al., 1999). Mashburn et al., (2008) found

that a measure of process quality that was most reliably correlated with the development of

children was the extents of the interactions between the teacher and the child. As teachers are

organizers, managers, providers of activities, and interact with children, their characteristics

should directly influence the quality of children’s experiences (Cryer et al., 1999).

Quality of classrooms across the nation is multidimensional as it takes into account a

variety of classroom features. Classroom quality is defined by a set of required standards

regarding structure and design allocated by each state; and, it is measured most often by the

number of minimum standards with which a program complies (Mashburn et al., 2008). A

number of tools have been developed to effectively measure process quality. The Early

Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), the Classroom Assessment Scoring System

(CLASS) and the Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS) are just a few of the available tools. Each of

these tools use observations to gather the data needed in order to correctly assess the process

quality of classrooms. The Emerging Academics Snapshot (EAS) is another observation tool

8

that, similar to the previous mentioned, is used to gauge children’s instruction and engagement

throughout academic activities; however, the EAS contributes further by also gauging teachers’

engagement.

Challenges in Working with the ELL Population for Teachers

As more teachers increasingly discover themselves teaching students from diverse

linguistic and cultural backgrounds, the task of assisting them in becoming successful speakers

of English increases as well (Carrison & Ernst-Slavit, 2005; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Mesa-

Baines & Shulman, 1994). A large majority of teachers are novices to instructing more

culturally and linguistically diverse students; accompanying this experience, teachers must find

appropriate and effective instructional strategies to accommodate the learning needs of this

particular student population (Carrison & Ernst-Slavit, 2005). The need for teachers to acquire

the understanding and skills to help ELLs succeed academically is more urgent than ever (Vacca-

Rizopoulos & Nicoletti, 2008) as it has been proven that it takes a period of five to seven years

for students to become proficient in a second language (Batt, 2008; Chamot, 1983; Curtin,

2005b; Miller & Endo, 2004; Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). As the teaching force remains

predominantly white, female and monolingual, the diverse language and cultural backgrounds of

students are growing drastically; meaning teachers must rise to the challenge, adjust their

teaching methods, equip themselves with the knowledge and skills to accommodate these

differences, build on individual strengths, and meet the needs of ELLs (Batt, 2008; DelliCarpini,

2008; Vacca-Rizopoulos & Nicoletti, 2008).

Programming regarding ELLinstruction. Students and teachers alike no longer have

the luxury of time to ameliorate the process of acclimation and language learning as components

9

of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act of 2001(PL 107-110) now enforce that English

Language Learners participate in standardized testing in English within three years of entering

school systems (Batt, 2008; Curtin, 2005a; Curtin, 2005b; Han & Bridglall, 2009). In order to

accommodate this legislation, schools are moving away from extended bilingual instruction, that

has been proven effective, to English only instruction (Han & Bridglall, 2009). Educational

programs are available in schools throughout the United States to assist ELLs, but a vast array of

learner and contextual aspects must be taken into consideration for these programs to be

effective. Ecological systems theory provides insight as to how such learner and contextual

aspects can be viewed independently as well as collectively. Aspects include but are not limited

to: cultural backgrounds, language practices, educational experience, variances in age and

language/literacy development, as well as the status of the language used in the child’s home and

culture in relation to the language and culture they are assimilating (Platt, Harper & Mendoza,

2003). While programs do exist, in order to qualify for services provided by these programs,

students must score at 35% or below on language proficiency scales (equivalent to a two year-

old level of everyday English); once above this level, students are no longer qualified for these

services (Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002). As a result, ELLs are all too often placed in mainstream

classrooms before gaining the degree of proficiency in academic language to compete on a level

playing field with their native English-speaking peers (Harklau, 1994).

With ESL instruction being limited by a student’s proficiency level of 35 % (Ernst-Slavit

et al., 2002), the differences in perceptions of students and teachers regarding ESL instruction

are quite interesting. Strang, Winglee, and Stunkard (1993) conducted a survey of high school

sophomores and their teachers in regards to their perceptions of the students’ language

proficiencies. When just the teachers’ surveys were taken into account, 97,000 students were

10

perceived to be qualified for ESL services. However, when students’ perceptions were

investigated, the number surged to 256,000, indicating that students do not feel their English is

up to par; but, because these students scored above 35%, they are not considered to be qualified

for ESL services (Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002).

Requirements of NCLB and 35% or below proficiency levels are disadvantageous to the

process of second language acquisition. In order to generate practices that are effective for

communication between teachers and ELLs, several aspects of language acquisition must first be

conveyed. Cummins (1989) suggested the idea of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills

(BICS), which is social language used every day, and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency

(CALP), which is cognitive, literacy and language skills. Cummins asserts that BICS can be

mastered within a two year period, but CALP can take up to twelve years. He further stresses

that by developing CALP, BICS will follow, but the reverse is not true as students may exhibit

fluency in the hallway; but, this does not communicate to the classroom (Black, 2005; Chamot,

1983; Curtin, 2005b; de Jong & Harper, 2005; DelliCarpini, 2008; Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002;

Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). The span in years that it takes to develop CALP is reflective

of the varying degrees of academic preparation and literacy skills that students carry with them

to secondary education (Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002). Mandating ELL students to test in English

within a three year period of entering the school system puts them at a great disadvantage as they

have yet to fully develop CALP within that time span.

Though programs may be beneficial, areas of improvement include acknowledging

students’ prior knowledge and experiences that they bring with them to their current

circumstance, as well as increasing the accessibility of programs as most students only spend a

portion of their day in the ESL or bilingual classroom (Clair, 1995; Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002;

11

Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). The practice of time spent split between an ESL/bilingual

classroom and a mainstream classroom is often referred to as “pull out” or “push in,” where

students that may need supplemental instruction in a certain content area are “pulled out” from

the mainstream classroom and sent to the ESL/bilingual classroom or if students have adequately

grasped a concept, they may be “pushed in” to a mainstream classroom from an ESL/bilingual

classroom (Honigsfeld, 2009; Lueck, 2010; Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). This is a prime

example of the efforts being made within the school systems to gradually move toward English

only instruction; and, this type of programming forecasts a despondent future for a myriad of

elementary age students (Black, 2005). An increasing number of ELLs are entering middle and

high schools with interrupted formal education (DelliCarpini, 2008). According to current

statistics, 20% of high school ELLs and 12% of middle school ELLs have missed at least two

years of formal education (DelliCarpini, 2008). While the reasons behind these interruptions of

instruction can only be speculated, it is of the utmost importance for teachers to make the most of

the time spent with this population and provide instruction that will benefit them academically.

This time is essential to their education as failure can become the incentive for middle and high

school students to drop out of the educational system. (Curtin, 2005b). Sheraga (1980) indicated

that high school may be ELL students’ last chance or the beginning of a new chance for self-

realization. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to bridge the existing gap between

ELLs level of content area knowledge and the grade level expectations that have been set by

district, state and federal policies (Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000).

Many practices, not just in regards to ELLs, in United States schools are influenced by

the implementation of No Child Left Behind and leave both students and teachers without much

room to negotiate academic needs. Despite discrepancies between legislation and effective

12

practices, it is essential to provide all students, English speaking or not, with an environment that

is conducive to learning and supportive of their academic needs. The lack of training in effective

strategies for ELL instruction impacts the variance of teachers’ instructional styles and their

ability to facilitate interaction with non-native English speakers in their classroom (Harklau,

1994). By supplying opportunities and encouragement for teachers to discuss their experiences,

teachers reported becoming more systematic, more aware of their actions in the classroom, and

more aware of their students’ needs (Hammond, 2008a). Children who are in the same grade and

lack understanding of the English language will have a wide variety of previous experiences that

must be acknowledged. In addition to developmental statuses, age upon arrival, length of

residency within the United States, and grade upon entry into the public school system are

variables that must be taken into consideration, as well as categorizing variables within ELLs

academic performance levels (Curtin, 2005b). This population of students will also have

developed their own schemas for concepts and will be either more or less inclined to acquire

English as a second language. Individual learning strategies and homogeneous grouping

activities can be devised once it is determined what children need to learn in concepts and the

English language. When children expose their individual language learning styles and strategies,

an assortment of techniques and approaches should be employed in order to capitalize on each

child’s preferred learning style (Chamot, 1983).

There are programs, however, that exist in order to amend the gap between teachers and

ELL students. For example, TELL or Teaching English Language Learners is a grant funded

program that provides 15 credits of graduate level course work to teachers who desire to learn

how to work with ELLs in their classroom and demonstrate interest, commitment, and dedication

to the issue of creating successful learning environments for ELLs (DelliCarpini, 2008).

13

Likewise, Operation Ser (Ser is a Spanish verb that translates to "To Be" in English) is an

antipoverty program that takes in at-risk ELL students and provides training for job skills and

academic equivalents to a GED certificate. The students involved with this program are

challenged to succeed and capable of doing just that as the mentors have substantial control over

the curriculum. By having the power to determine what subject each individual needs to devote

more time to, these mentors can shape their syllabus accordingly to enhance the student's ability

to succeed (Adamson, 2005). In an edition of Education Week, an article focusing on the

difficulty of establishing these early education programs argued that studies that had been

conducted provide evidence for expansion of such programs as a correlation was found between

participation and higher educational attainment (Jacobson, 2007).

Collaboration between educators. Penfield’s 1987 study depicted that in lower

elementary grades, mainstream teachers believed the teaching of sight word mastery and phonics

should be the responsibility solely of the ESL teacher. This belief is also supported by de Jong

and Harper’s study conducted in 2005. A quarter of a century later, the primary responsibility

for the instruction of ELLs can no longer rest on the shoulders of ESL teachers; collaboration

between ESL and mainstream teachers must be followed through in order to support the

academic needs of the students. While content area/grade level teachers must be able to be

language teachers to ELLs; ESL teachers must also be able to facilitate and support the

development of content concepts (DelliCarpini, 2008; Vacca-Rizopoulos & Nicoletti, 2008;

Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). This element of collaboration between mainstream and ESL

teachers reinforces the interaction of the mesosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems

theory. Unfortunately, recent literature depicts a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration in

schools across America (DelliCarpini, 2008; Honigsfeld, 2009; Pawan, 2008). Platt, Harper, and

14

Mendoza (2003) indicated that inclusion had received a bad name in a district in which they had

conducted their study due to mainstream teachers’ lack of consistency in strategy implementation

and collaboration.

Teachers Fostering Relationships with ELL Students

Relationships are conceptually defined as connections, associations, or involvement

between individuals. According to Robert Pianta (1999), relationships between children and

adults play a critical role in a child’s development as they form and shape its course. These

relationships that begin early in life, typically with one’s parents, help to solidify the foundations

of the child’s development that support what is asked of a child in school: communication,

cooperation, amicability, determination, motivation, and exploration. This structure is expected

to be carried on throughout the school years, with continued support from parents; but, can be

challenged by changes in relationships (Pianta, 1999). There is often a lack of cross cultural

relationships (due to language barriers, cultural differences, and time) between teachers and their

ELL students and their families; constituting a change in relationships.

A common belief across the teaching population is that teaching is the same despite the

types of students in your classroom; however, this negates the importance of individual

difference and negatively affects the classroom environment (Clair, 1995). Unfortunately,

cultural scaffolding is seldom referenced in classrooms; and, embracing the variety of cultures

and demonstrating that the presence of these cultures are valued will only add to classroom

environment, not detract from it (Black, 2005; Curtin, 2005b; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Ernst-

Slavit et al., 2002; Miller & Endo, 2004; Pawan, 2008). Eugene Garcia depicts the importance

of embracing diverse cultures in his 1999 work, Student Cultural Diversity: Understanding and

Meeting the Challenge: “we must start with their culture…and look first to determine how they

15

seek to know themselves and others and how their expertise and experience can be used as the

fuel to fire their interests, knowledge and skills…for they are rich in assets” (p. 82). Current

research indicates that a school’s resources and learning environment are important to ELLs in

particular, because teaching is fundamentally relational (Han & Bridglall, 2009; Pawan, 2008).

Cross cultural relationships must be developed between teachers and students in order to create a

positive learning environment (Miller & Endo, 2004, Pawan, 2008). However, mainstream

teachers may find it difficult to create a truly welcoming environment for ELLs in their

classroom as there are substantial linguistic and conceptual differences between teachers and

students when the same language, assumptions, or life experiences are not common to both

groups (Gibbons, 2003; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). The extant language barrier between students

and teachers creates a detriment to the process of forming healthy relationships within the

classroom. It is essential for these cross cultural relationships to be forged to enhance both the

individual child’s development as well as the classroom environment.

Teachers Interacting with ELL Students

Interaction is conceptually defined as reciprocal action or influence. As interactions can

be both positive and negative, it is important to consider the relational aspect of interaction and

instruction. Previous research has found that the elementary years are the most beneficial for

language instruction (Teale, 2009). At the age of five, when most children begin school, children

are novices to the social environment in which they participate daily. From the age of five to

adolescence, physical, cognitive, social and emotional transitions occur that ultimately have an

impact on the amount, kind, content and significance of interactions between children and their

environments (Collins, Madsen, & Susman-Stillman, 2002). The socialization processes that

children endure are contextual, multidirectional and transactional depending upon their

16

environment. Therefore, classroom environments and teaching styles are exceedingly influential

on the course of language and content instruction. Curtin, (2005a), depicted the importance of

creating an interactive environment rather than a didactic one in a classroom. In her study, she

found that interactive teachers appeared to be the most culturally responsive and more conscious

of the instructional and academic needs of ELLs. Van Lier (1996) stated that for a person to

acquire knowledge, they must be an active participant in an activity that is somewhat familiar

and somewhat novel, so that they may focus on useful changes and increase attainable

knowledge (Gibbons, 2003). Gibbons (2003) further noted that language learning is a socially

mediated process where both students and teachers must actively participate in the co-

construction of language and curriculum knowledge. These accounts parallel Vygotsky’s

sociocultural theory in that he promoted students playing active roles, so that learning becomes a

reciprocal experience for the student and teacher (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012), as

well as the components of Zone of Proximal Development and scaffolding. It is however, the

teacher’s responsibility to develop appropriate strategies and approaches for the targeted group if

all students are to be active participants in the classroom community (Vacca-Rizopoulos &

Nicoletti, 2008). Supplementing the idea of scaffolding, observational learning plays a large role

in the school environment as learning in social situations is achieved at a faster rate through

observing the behavior of others (Ledford, Gast, Luscre, & Ayres, 2008).

Two major issues that currently plague the instruction of ELL students in mainstream

classrooms are that teachers desire quick fixes and illuminate that the need to understand second

language acquisition is dire; but also, teachers need to make accommodations in regards to their

beliefs, values, and attitudes toward ELLs in order to facilitate their academic achievement in the

classrooms (Clair, 1995). Unfortunately, the attitudes that teachers exhibit toward ELLs are

17

likely to affect what students learn and how students respond to the challenge of learning a

second language; therefore, questions of mainstream teachers’ abilities to effectively instruct

these students still remain (Clair, 1995; de Jong & Harper, 2005; Youngs & Youngs, 2001).

Sociocultural theory posits that learning is a reciprocal experience for both teachers and students

(Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012), which supports the notion of interface between the

microsystem and the individual of ecological systems theory. An example of such is the

objective and public evaluation from nonfamily members that children experience in the school

environment. It is essential for teachers to provide welcoming child-centered environments that

are conducive to children’s learning, as a major issue that pervades classrooms is that of the self-

fulfilling prophecy; or, an expectation that elicits certain behaviors, therefore confirming that

expectation (Encyclopedia, 2012). These expectations are often born from preconceived

stereotypes; for example, the silent period of ELLs which will be further explained in following

paragraphs.

Ineffective interaction strategies. With mounting, and often novel, challenges,

mainstream teachers are likely to represent wide variations of enthusiasm and readiness to

incorporate ELL students into their classrooms (Youngs & Youngs, 2001); and, can readily

identify pros and cons associated with teaching this population. Teachers often are misinformed

about the native cultures of English language learners and expect less of students using non-

standard English, which can also elicit a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, the silent period,

as described by Krashen (1992), is often misinterpreted by teachers as an unwillingness to

participate; yet, this period plays a crucial role in language acquisition and cultural adaptation

(Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). The silent period is characterized by active

listening in order to process the language that is being heard and applying it to the context in

18

which it is being used. This period of second language acquisition is similar to the pre-speech

stage of first language acquisition in that infants take in what they hear and when they are ready,

they replicate it. Despite misconceptions, teachers that have more positive attitudes toward the

inclusion of ELLs in their classrooms have been found to have had a foreign language or multi-

cultural education course, have had some ESL training, have lived or taught outside of the

United States, have interacted with a culturally diverse population and are female. This leaves a

vast number of teachers with either indifferent or negative attitudes toward ELL inclusion. As

many teachers concede feeling inadequately prepared to accommodate ELLs in their classrooms,

direct personal contact with diverse cultures is encouraged as a means to increase self-awareness

and awareness of cultural differences. Exposure to cultural diversity appears to enhance

appreciation for it. Although this may not ameliorate the lack of preparation for instructing this

population, it will certainly aid in creating a welcoming classroom environment for them and

allow teachers to take advantage of emerging instructional practices.

Curtin (2005b) required ELL students to enumerate the strategies they found most

ineffective utilized by their teachers in their classrooms. Those most reported were being

required to read in front of the peers; public correction of mistakes; isolating language-minority

students from the language-majority students; overlooking language-minority students;

humiliating students; providing inadequate support; rapidly covering information; providing

answers without sufficient explanation or discussion; only offering one explanation; presenting

too many directions; speaking too rapidly; not presenting examples; and, supplying too few

practice items (Curtin, 2005b). The practices exhibited in this study have the ability to

detrimentally affect both the cognitive and social development of ELLs. The lack of instruction

geared toward their individual zones of proximal development, ability to inflict a self-fulfilling

19

prophecy, and negatively impact their confidence in their intellectual abilities and language

acquisition can affect cognitive development; while, the lack of practicing the transaction of

effective interpersonal skills, and moral reasoning/behavioral issues can arise through acting out

in order to receive attention, can impact the social development of the students. This lack of

communication has the capability to set up any classroom for failure. While it is suitably

resolved that federal, state, and district policies may mandate what teachers should be doing,

teachers are in total control of the implementation process once the classroom door is closed

(Curtin, 2005b; de Jong & Harper, 2005); meaning that teachers may not be holding themselves

accountable for those requirements. Subsequent interviews revealed that ELL students in

mainstream classrooms preferred not to ask for more examples or explanations even if they were

needed, as teachers expressed anger and frustration according to one student. This type of

environment taught these students the culture of classroom survival. Each ELL student would

take turns requesting assistance or more examples in order to share the brunt of teachers’

unkindness or simply to avoid getting into trouble for asking for assistance from a neighbor and

being accused of cheating (Curtin, 2005b).

Effective interaction strategies. Integrating the language and content of core

curriculum throughout ELLs time spent in school is paramount to their success; so many teachers

have adopted using exposure, interaction, use, and content as vehicles for language and literacy

development (Batt, 2008; de Jong & Harper, 2005; DelliCarpini, 2008; Gibbons, 2003;

Hammond, 2008a). Maxwell (2011) reported on videos revealing interviews with middle school

ELLs. These interviews were conducted in order to glean better insight into what teachers could

do to enrich the communication practices in their classrooms. From her viewing, Maxwell found

several ideas were presented. They are as follows:

20

1. Listen to students to improve instructional skills.

2. Be more patient with comprehension.

3. Provide more time for choice reading.

4. Encourage ELL students to support one another.

5. Provide only essential information.

6. Speak at a moderate pace.

7. Talk with students individually.

8. Employ small group/partner assignments (Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000)

While these are just a few students’ suggestions, they should not be taken lightly as they are most

likely representative of the larger ELL population. Other suggestions of helpful communication

practices include:

1. Errors in language indicate process (Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002)

2. Learn native language and English (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Miller & Endo, 2004;

Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000 )

3. Be aware of potential emotional trauma (Miller & Endo, 2004)

4. Watch for negative influences such as torment from peers or isolation from family

(Miller & Endo, 2004)

5. Encourage involvement in community events that promote culture (de Jong & Harper;

2005; Miller & Endo, 2004)

6. Welcome parents as a resource (Miller & Endo, 2004)

7. Connections with students have important rewards such as shared pools of knowledge

(Teale, 2009)

8. Place ELL students at front of classroom in order to scan students’ faces for signs of

comprehension, confusion, or responses to questions. (Harklau, 1994)

9. Present material through multiple methods (de Jong & Harper, 2005; Wertheimer &

Honigsfeld, 2000)

Teale (2009) suggested that adjusting classroom instruction to meet native cultural

linguistic patterns allowed students to be more engaged and participate more often. Doing so

21

makes the instruction more compatible; and, while building up their culture, it also boosts

students’ self-esteem (Gibbons, 2003). Further, dedication to students and their learning is

conveyed when lessons are presented with enthusiasm, and teachers are attentive and responsive

to students’ needs (Lueck, 2010). Ultimately, good teaching and sound pedagogical practices

have a major impact on students’ educational experiences and learning outcomes (Hammond,

2008b). When everything is taken into consideration, ELLs may fare better when their school

leaders and teachers are their advocates (Black, 2005).

Purpose

From the extant literature used in this writing, the ideas and concepts conveyed regarding

ELLs in mainstream classrooms are cohesive throughout almost 30 years of research; insinuating

that there are effective and proven practices. These studies also include different ELL

populations in terms of age and language, so that it is not limited to one specific sector of the

population. However, although different populations are studied, the same suggestions for these

diverse populations are offered. Interactions between teachers and children have been found to

have an impact on children’s development; and, given these previous findings, information

regarding these interactions could prove invaluable (Han & Bridglall, 2009). Social interaction

plays an essential role in cognitive development processes according to Vygotsky’s sociocultural

theory; as he felt that interactions precede development (Learning Theories Knowledgebase,

2012). In one of his works, Vygotsky states that children’s functions of cultural development

appear first on the social level and are later followed through on an individual level (Learning

Theories Knowledgebase, 2012). These notions indicate the importance of social interaction

within the classroom environment, the impact that social interaction is capable of bearing upon

22

cognitive and social/emotional development, and the need for more research to be dedicated to

this subject. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to:

1. To describe specific kindergarten teacher and classroom characteristics (aspects of

structural quality) that serve ELL and non-ELL children.

2. To examine relationships between native-English speaking kindergarten teachers and

ELL and Non-ELL children within their own classroom.

2A. Specifically, do mainstream, native-English speaking, kindergarten teachers differ in

their relationships with ELLs and Non-ELLs in their classrooms (assessed using the

STRS)?

A. The independent variables are the comparison groups of ELL and Non-ELL students.

B. The dependent variable are the teachers’ ratings on the STRS.

3. To examine if native-English speaking kindergarten teachers differ in their interactions

with ELL and Non-ELL children within their own classrooms.

3A. Specifically, do mainstream, native-English speaking, kindergarten teachers differ in

their interactions with ELLs and Non-ELLs in their classrooms (assessed using the

Emerging Academic Snapshot)?

A. The independent variables are the comparison groups of ELL and Non-ELL students.

B. The dependent variables are the observation ratings conducted using the Emerging

Academic Snapshot

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Sample

Following approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB), the study was conducted

within three rural counties of the eastern part of North Carolina. A minimum of 30 kindergarten

teachers across three counties were asked to participate in the study as these are rural counties

and have larger ELL populations (United States Census Bureau, 2013). The study was restricted

to public school, full day kindergarten classrooms that enrolled at least one ELL student in their

classroom.

Upon initial enrollment to any North Carolina public school, all students are required by

law to complete a Home Language Survey (HLS) to determine if they are a language minority

student (R. Garland, Personal Communication, May 2, 2011). Should they be deemed as such,

students are then administered the WIDA Access Placement Test (W-APT) to determine the level

of services to be provided for their instruction (R. Garland, Personal Communication, May 2,

2011). Only students that have been labeled by the local education agency (LEA) as language

minority students were considered as ELL for the purpose of this study. Only lead teachers from

the selected kindergarten classrooms participated in the study. While this sampling technique is

systematic and purposeful, it is still believed to be indicative of the larger population (Bordens &

Abbot, 2008).

School demographics formed an importance basis for this study. From publicly available data

(Public School Review, 2012), each public school from counties 1, 2, and 3 were searched. Each

school’s student population is distributed along a range of percentages in accordance with the

students’ races. The percentage of students of Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, and Unknown

24

were added; and then multiplied by the school’s total population to gain an insight into the

possible ELL populations that may be present in these schools. As this number is representative

of the entire K-5 population, only schools that have high percentages of students that could be

ELL students were contacted to ensure that a portion of these students will represent the

Kindergarten sector.

Permission was sought from 15 school administrators to conduct this study within their

school. For example, see Appendix B. Nine school administrators consented, while three

declined, and three did not respond. A total of 36 individual Kindergarten teachers from the

nine schools were asked to participate through presentation of the study at grade level meetings.

For example, see Appendix C. Teachers willing to participate were given a copy of the

demographic survey, copies of the STRS measure to be completed for each student, a self-

addressed envelope with pre-paid postage for their convenience. Nineteen teachers consented

and returned data. A total of two teachers responded from County 1, nine from County 2 and

eight from County 3. More details regarding these teachers will be provided in the results

section.

Measures

Demographics survey. A self-constructed demographic survey was used to gather

background data on teacher and classroom characteristics. Information regarding the teachers’

age, gender, education level, licensure, and experience formed part of the teacher characteristics

on the survey. While, information regarding the type and make-up of the classroom, services

provided to the children within and outside the classroom was a part of the classroom

characteristics on the survey (See Appendix D).

25

Student Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS). This abbreviated scale was developed by

Robert Pianta (2001) in order to measure relationships between teachers and their students. For

example, see Appendix E. There are two subscales: closeness and conflict. The closeness

subscale entails 8 items that measure the affection, openness and warmth a teacher experiences

with a specific child. The conflict subscale measures the dissonance of the teacher-child

interactions through 7 items. A total score is reflective of the overall quality of the relationship a

teacher has with each individual child in their classroom. Higher total scores on each of the

subscales indicate more closeness or higher conflicting relationships between the teacher and the

students. Reliability is maintained at .83 within each study that the scale has been used.

Emerging Academics Snapshot. This measure is an observational tool that focuses on

social academic experiences of individual children in a classroom setting that was developed by

Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, and Weiser in 2001. It is often used to describe both the children’s

activities and adults’ responses through 27 items. For example, see Appendices F, G, and H. In

a 20-second period, observers determine whether the 27 items are present or absent, and follow-

up with a 40-second coding period. This tool can be used traditionally with one child at a time or

as a “snapshot” of the entire classroom environment. While this measure does not yield scores

of quality, it is an appropriate tool to use as an observation to provide specific descriptors of how

children spend their time in the classroom. Reliability has been met or exceeded at .75 for this

observational tool in previous studies.

Establishing Inter-Rater Reliability on Emerging Academics Snapshot

An initial observation was conducted at East Carolina University’s Child Development

Center to ensure proper use of the Emerging Academics Snapshot tool, as well as inter-rater

reliability. The principle investigator and an undergraduate assistant conducted a total of four

26

observations over a three week period. The measure was used in a Snapshot fashion and four

children were observed in succession. After each observation of the fourth child, the principle

investigator and undergraduate assistant convened to discuss the observation and ensure that

similar interactions, activities, and engagement were surveyed during the time period. Inter-rater

reliability was maintained between 85% and 89% which was acceptable to the authors.

Protocol Used for Data Collection

To complete the demographics survey and STRS on each individual student in the

classroom (both ELL and Non-ELL), it was required that teachers have at least one ELL child

enrolled in the classroom to ensure experience in instructing this population. STRS data was

collected on a total of 408 students. Once the STRS data were analyzed, classes were selected

for observation. The following criterion determined the inclusion or exclusion of those

classrooms within the observations: 1) teachers’ diverse training/experiences in terms of

language exposure, teacher education programs, and professional development, and 2) the

presence of at least 3 ELL children in the classroom.

A total of two classrooms from each school could be utilized in the study, so as not to

create a nested design. A total of eight classrooms were selected for observation based on the

above mentioned criterion. Teachers were contacted and asked to continue their participation in

the study; however, only five of the eight responded. Finally, only five of the 19 classrooms

were selected for the detailed observations due to the qualitative nature of the study and the

length of observations conducted using the Emerging Snapshots; but, it still provided an accurate

depiction of the interactions and relationships teachers have with their ELL and Non-ELL

students. The principle investigator was the sole observer in each classroom. They found a

location at the back of the classroom in order to be a passive observer and unobtrusive.

27

Categories of the observation coding include: the activity setting, interaction with adults, and

engagement in activities. For the purpose of this study, the EAS measure was used as a snapshot.

The procedure for this was to observe four children in succession. The first child was observed

for twenty seconds and their behaviors were then coded for forty seconds. This process was

repeated with the second, third, and fourth students. Once each child had been observed, the

observer rested and began again with the first child to ensure reliability. The observer spent a

total of three hours at each observation site.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential (parametric) statistics. Percentages

and charts were formulated to analyze most of the demographic and observational data on

teacher and classroom characteristics, while mean, standard deviation, and ANOVAs were

employed to analyze data gathered from the STRS.

Teacher Characteristics

Attributes were divided into two sections; personal and professional. Personal

characteristics examined variables such as teacher’s age, ethnicity, education level and

experience level in the field. While professional characteristics directly examined teachers

specific experiences with ELL children, such as ELL training acquired as a part of professional

pre or in-service teacher training and experiences teachers’ have with ELL children in their past

or present. The following section depicts both personal and professional characteristics of the

teachers.

Personal teacher characteristics. Only lead teachers teaching kindergarten classrooms

were included in this study. All participating teachers (N=19) were females and a large majority

of these teachers were Caucasian (78.9%), 15.8% African American and 5.3% were of Hispanic

origin. Teachers’ ages ranged between 24 to 58 years. While, their length of residency in the

state of North Carolina ranged from one to 58 years with a mean of 31.98 and a standard

deviation of 14.46. Of the sample, only 5.3% of the teachers spoke a language aside from

English. All teachers possessed at least a four year degree in education (68.4%) or a related field

(5.3%); while some obtained graduate degrees (26.3%). The majority held licensures for

elementary education (63.2%), while others were licensed in Birth through Kindergarten

education (15.8%). Others had multiple licensures (15.8%); while one participant did not

29

respond (5.3%). Number of years in the education field ranged from one to 30 years with a mean

of 10.74 and a standard deviation of 14.46. Number of years in the school at which the teachers

are currently employed ranged from one to 16 years with a mean of 6.05 and a standard deviation

of 5.06. Experience teaching Pre-Kindergarten ranged from zero to four years with a mean of

0.58 and a standard deviation of 1.26. Experience teaching Kindergarten ranged from one to 19

years with a mean of 5.87 and a standard deviation of 5.58. Number of months with this

particular student group ranged from four to six months with a mean of 4.39 and a standard

deviation of 0.59. Table 1 depicts these results.

It was of interest to the principle investigator to further examine the characteristics

specific to the teachers chosen to participate in the observation portion of this study. Of the five

teachers observed, 40% had attained graduate degrees. In regards to licensure, 80% of teachers

had received Elementary Licenses while 20% had attained a Birth-Kindergarten licensure.

Number of years in the field ranged from three to 21.

Professional teacher characteristics. The following section depicts teachers’ specific

experiences with ELL children; such as, ELL training acquired as a part of professional, pre, or

in-service teacher training and experiences with ELL children in teachers' past or present.

Teachers’ language exposure. When surveyed regarding their perception of their

exposure to different languages, teachers responded with either none (5.3%), limited (31.6%), or

varied (63.1%) exposure. Below, Figure 2 depicts the avenues through which teachers reported

gaining such exposure. As shown, practicum experiences in teacher education programs and

paid employment positions are responsible for the majority of their exposure to different

languages.

30

Table 1

Personal Teacher Characteristics of Sample n=19

Characteristic Mean Standard Deviation

Length of Residency 31.98 14.46

Number of Years in the Field 10.74 14.46

Number of Years at the School 6.05 5.06

Experience Teaching Pre-K 0.58 1.26

Experience Teaching Kindergarten 5.87 5.58

Number of Months with Student Group 4.39 0.59

31

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 2. Language Exposure Gains

32

Teachers’ training experiences. In their teacher education programs, 78.9% of teachers

partook in practicums and field experiences. As students, 5.3% of participants reported having

received instruction regarding ELL students through a required course, while 42.1% reported

having instruction merged throughout several courses. Of the teachers surveyed, 94.7% stated

that they would have enrolled in courses regarding ELL students if they were available, even if it

were not a required course. Regarding cultural education, 21.1% reported having a required

course in their programs dedicated to the subject.

Hours of professional development experience ranged from zero to 20 hours among the

participants with a mean of 4.76 and a standard deviation of 5.91; one participant (5.3%) did not

respond to this query. A large majority of the sample (89.5%) indicated that participation in

professional development was encouraged in their school. When asked if employers offered any

training regarding ELL students, 47.3% of the sample confirmed that their schools did in fact

offer such training. In regards to participation in such training, 31.6% of teachers responded that

they did not, while 42.1% stated that they did, and 26.3% did not respond. Conversely, all

participants conveyed that they would participate in any professional development opportunities

regarding ELLs if it were offered. Approximately 95% of the participants expressed that they

felt educating ELL students in their classroom was in fact their responsibility, while 5.3%

responded yes and no to this inquiry. Finally, only 36.8% of the respondents felt adequately

prepared to teach ELL students in their classrooms, leaving 63.1% feeling inadequately prepared

for such responsibility.

Of the five teachers observed, 80% had varied experience working with ELL students,

while 20% had limited experience. The majority (80%) had gained this experience through a

paid employment position. None of the teachers observed had received instruction regarding

33

ELL students during their teacher education program and only 20% had received instruction

regarding culture; however, all teachers expressed an interest in enrolling despite non-

requirement. Professional development hours that the observed teachers have participated in

ranged from 10-20 hours. Each of the five teachers felt as though educating ELLs was their

responsibility; however, only 60% felt adequately prepared to do so.

Classroom Characteristics

Each classroom ranged from 18 to 25 students per class with a mean of 21.7 and a

standard deviation of 2.22. Of the students in each class there was a range of seven to 16 boys

with a mean of 11.39 and a standard deviation of 2.0; and, seven to 14 girls with a mean of 10.31

and a standard deviation of 1.89. Students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) ranged

from zero to six with a mean of 1.70 and a standard deviation of 1.5. Number of ELL students

per classroom ranged from one to 10 with a mean of 4.54 and a standard deviation of 2.35.

Table 2 represents this data.

Services provided to ELL students included programs administered in class such as

English in a Flash, small group instruction, additional one on one help, verbal and visual

supports, peer help and grouped work, as well as pull out instruction based in the ESL classroom.

ELL students pulled out for intervention services ranged from one to nine students per classroom

with a mean of 4.01 and a standard deviation of 2.63.

34

Table 2

Classroom Characteristics

Characteristic Mean Standard Deviation

Students per Class 21.7 2.22

Boys per Class 11.39 2

Girls per Class 10.31 1.89

Students with IEPs 1.7 1.5

ELL Students per Class 4.54 2.35

ELL Students Pulled out for Intervention 4.01 2.63

35

Differences in teacher relationships with ELLs and Non-ELLs

One of the research question of this study sought to find if any differences existed

between teachers’ relationships with ELL and Non-ELL students within their own classroom.

This was assessed using the STRS measure (α = .70). Data were analyzed by reverse coding

one item on the survey, then averaging the scores for the eight and seven items to generate the

closeness (α = .90) and conflict (α = .91) subscales respectively. A one-way analysis of variance

was conducted to evaluate the relationship between the closeness and conflict subscales for

teachers’ relationships with both ELL and Non-ELL students. Students were divided into two

groups based upon teachers’ reports of being an ELL or a Non-ELL. Table 3 depicts the

following results. Teachers differed significantly in their closeness between ELL and Non-ELL

children (F (1, 404) = 4.6, p = .033). Indicating, teachers shared a closer relationship with their

Non-ELL children than their ELL counterparts. Interestingly, teachers also confronted higher

conflicting relationship with Non-ELL children than ELL children, as indicated by the

significant differences within the means across these two groups F (1, 406) = 8.9, p = .003.

Overall, teachers’ relationships did differ for ELL and NON-ELL students within their

classrooms.

Differences in teacher interactions with ELLs and Non-ELLs

The other research question of this study sought to find if any differences existed between

teachers’ interactions with ELL and Non-ELL students within their classroom. This was

assessed using the Emerging Academics Snapshot measure. Throughout observations, items

regarding activity setting, interaction with adults, and engagement in activities were coded as

present or not present at the period of surveillance. Each student was observed 45 times to

ensure reliability. A percentage was obtained by taking the total amount of items found present

36

Table 3

Closeness and Conflict Subscale Scores

Groups ELL Non-ELL

Subscales M SD M SD df F

Closeness 4.26 0.739 4.45 0.718 1 4.6

Conflict 1.17 0.425 1.46 0.854 1 8.9

37

in each category, multiplying that number by 100, and dividing the product by the total number

of observations, 45. This procedure was conducted for each of the four students observed. Next,

observations were categorized by ELL and Non-ELL group membership. Percentages within

each group were then averaged to determine if any differences existed in the teachers’

interactions between the groups. The principle investigator reviewed only three point

differences. Although it is not possible to discern the statistical significance of each percentage,

they are able to stand on their own as a mathematical expression (S. Mai, Personal

Communication, March 23, 2013).

After coding and analyzing observational data from the Emerging Academics Snapshot

tool, it was determined that ELL students spent more time engaged in onlooker behaviors than

their Non-ELL peers (7% and 3% respectively). Activity settings differed in that ELL students

were more engaged in letter/sound, writing and aesthetics (31%, 12%, and 17% respectively)

than their Non-ELL peers (24%, 9% and 14% respectively); while Non-ELL were more engaged

in pre-reading activities when compared to their ELL peers (17% and 13% respectively).

Teachers spent less time in minimal interaction with ELL students in comparison to Non-ELL

students (0% and 3% respectively); minimal interaction constitutes responding to direct requests

from the child or giving verbal directives with only a few words. Table 4 and Figure 3 describe

these results.

The principle investigator was further interested in examining if teachers differed in their

interactions between ELL and Non-ELL children based on their gender (males vs. females). It

was found that both ELL males and females spent more time engaged in onlooker behaviors (7%

38

and 8% respectively) when compared to their Non-ELL male and female peers (2% and 4%

respectively). Teachers spent more time in elaborate interaction with ELL female students (5%)

than their Non-ELL female peers (2%); while minimally interacting more often with Non-ELL

female students than ELL female students (4% and 1% respectively). Additionally, teachers

spent more time speaking less didactically to ELL female students (4% respectively) than their

Non-ELL female peers (7% respectively). Table 5 and Figure 4 denote these results.

39

Table 4

Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups

Observation Criteria ELL Totals Non-ELL Totals

Disengaged

Distracted 35% 35%

Onlooker 7% 3%

Activity Setting

Routine 4% 4%

Meals/Snacks 2% 2%

Whole Group Time 38% 39%

Free Choice/Center 1% 3%

Individual Time 26% 26%

Small Group Time 28% 26%

Child Engagement

Read To 4% 5%

Pre-Read/Read 13% 17%

Letter/Sound 31% 24%

Oral Language Development 10% 8%

Chatting 12% 14%

Writing 12% 9%

Math 4% 3%

Science 0% 1%

Social Studies 0% 0%

Aesthetics 17% 14%

Gross Motor 3% 4%

Fine Motor 23% 19%

Adult Interaction

Routine 0% 1%

Minimal 0% 3%

Simple 9% 10%

Elaborated 4% 3%

Adult-Child Engagement

Organization 0% 1%

Encourages 7% 5%

Scaffolds 4% 2%

Didactic 6% 7%

Second Language 0% 0%

40

Table 5

Interactions between Teachers and Male and Female ELL and Male and Female Non-ELL

Student Groups

Observation Criteria Male Female

ELL Non-ELL ELL Non-ELL

Disengaged Distracted

39% 40%

31% 30% Onlooker

7% 2%

8% 4%

Activity Setting Routine

3% 4%

6% 4% Meals/Snacks

2% 0%

1% 3%

Whole Group Time

40% 43%

36% 36% Free Choice/Center

1% 1%

1% 5%

Individual Time

29% 26%

23% 26% Small Group Time

25% 25%

31% 28%

Child Engagement Read To

4% 4%

4% 5% Pre-Read/Read

14% 23%

12% 11%

Letter/Sound

28% 26%

34% 21% Oral Language Development

9% 9%

11% 6%

Chatting

13% 16%

11% 12% Writing

10% 9%

14% 9%

Math

5% 3%

3% 4% Science

0% 1%

0% 0%

Social Studies

0% 0%

0% 0% Aesthetics

19% 10%

14% 18%

Gross Motor

3% 5%

3% 3% Fine Motor

24% 16%

22% 22%

Adult Interaction Routine

0% 0%

0% 2% Minimal

0% 2%

1% 4%

Simple

8% 10%

9% 9% Elaborated

4% 4%

5% 2%

Adult-Child Engagement Organization

0% 0%

0% 1% Encourages

6% 5%

8% 6%

Scaffolds

4% 2%

4% 3% Didactic

7% 7%

4% 7%

Second Language 0% 0% 0% 0%

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Onlooker Pre-read/Read Letter/Sound Writing Aesthetics Minimal

Interaction

ELL

Non-ELL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Onlooker Minimal Interaction Elaborated Interaction Didactic Engagement

ELL Male

Non-ELL Male

ELL Female

Non-ELL Female

Figure 3. Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups

Figure 4. Gender Specific Interactions between Teachers and ELL and Non-ELL Student Groups

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Fundamentally this study sought to determine if kindergarten teachers differed in their

relationships and interactions between ELL and Non-ELL students. As mentioned previously,

information regarding the interactions between teachers and students is of great value as it has

the ability to significantly impact a child’s development (Han & Bridglall, 2009). Analysis of

results indicated that differences in both relationships and interactions were present. The

following section will further discuss these findings, as well as implications and further

directions for the study.

From the research conducted it was found that teachers maintain closer relationships with

Non-ELL students than their ELL peers; however, these relationships are also more likely to be

conflict laden than those with ELL students. A speculation as to why teachers may have less

closeness and conflict with their ELL student group is the lack of cross cultural relationships in

the classroom. The relationships are essential for a positive learning environment (Miller &

Endo, 2004, Pawan, 2008); but, are difficult to forge against substantial linguistic and conceptual

differences as well as cultural barriers extant between teachers and students (Dardjowidjojo,

2001; Gibbons, 2003; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Another speculation for the existence of such

differences in relationships could be the focus on academics due to the availability of the NC

Pre-K programs in North Carolina. These programs across North Carolina are intended to offer

access to high-quality educational experiences to ensure school readiness for four-year-olds that

are deemed eligible. Eligibility is determined through families’ low socioeconomic status,

educational or developmental needs that could result in IEPs, Limited English Proficient (LEP)

children, children of an active military parent, or children who have a chronic health condition

(North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education, 2012). Student enrollment

43

in an NC Pre-K program constitutes their kindergarten enrollment as the student’s second year in

a formal education setting. As a result, teachers may feel less inclined to focus on interaction

and language development with ELL students during their kindergarten years as they have

already experienced a year’s worth of such instruction in Pre-K.

Depicted throughout observational data based on comparisons drawn between ELL and

Non-ELL students, it was found that teachers spend much of their classroom time focused on

academic material such as phonics and writing with ELL students. Contrary to previous findings

that depicted teachers’ beliefs of sight word mastery and phonics to be the responsibility solely

of the ESL teacher (De Jong & Harper, 2005; Penfield, 1987), teachers are beginning to share

this responsibility in the mainstream classroom as well. This brings about the question is

collaboration actually occurring, or are mainstream teachers required to take on this

responsibility due to the presence or absence of an ESL teacher at the school? This effort could

also be interpreted as building opportunities to prepare students for the requirements of high

stakes achievement testing that they will be required to participate in within three years’ time as

mandated by NCLB (Batt, 2008; Curtin, 2005a; Curtin, 2005b; Han & Bridglall, 2009). With

such a requirement, language development and time are of the essence. According to Cummins

(1989), cognitive academic language, necessary for comprehension on these high stakes

achievement tests, can take up to 12 years to attain (Black, 2005; Chamot, 1983; Curtin, 2005b;

de Jong & Harper, 2005; DelliCarpini, 2008; Ernst-Slavit, Moore, & Maloney, 2002;

Wertheimer & Honigsfeld, 2000). He further notes that achievement of CALP is a direct

reflection of the academic preparation and literacy skills that students are provided in formal

instruction (Ernst-Slavit et al., 2002). Teachers’ focus on both phonics and writing in their

classrooms can be interpreted as an effort to help students master CALP. However, when

44

teachers are not directly addressing ELL students, students spend more time on-looking to their

peers; indicating that they may have not understood the teachers’ directions or the assignment in

general, are looking at a more-knowledgeable other to help scaffold their tasks or are engaging in

processes of the silent period. This crucial period of language acquisition allows ELL students

to actively listen in order process the language that is being heard, apply it to the appropriate

context, and replicate the language/behavior when they are prepared to do so (Ernst-Slavit et al.,

2002; Krashen, 1992; Youngs & Youngs, 2001).

Sociocultural theory states that children learn through social interactions, and in turn,

actively pursue knowledge through interacting with their environments (Learning Theories

Knowledgebase, 2012; Vygotsky, 1978; Vygotsky, 1986). With teachers’ efforts to cultivate

ELL students’ CALP attainment, it is important to keep in mind that language is best learned

through context. Research has indicated that language is best developed in an array of situations

that promote talk and interaction. Literacy is a component of language; therefore, reading and

writing develop alongside speaking and listening (Ernst-Slavit, Moore, & Maloney, 2002). This

knowledge indicates the importance of focusing on interactions and communication with ELL

students within the classroom, not solely academics, which was observed in this study. It is also

essential to keep in mind the importance of this interaction because teaching, itself, is

fundamentally relational (Han & Bridglall, 2009; Pawan, 2008).

It was of great interest to examine gender differences in the interactions that kindergarten

teachers have with ELL and Non-ELL students because this was where interactions were found

to differentiate. This information was not found when data were collapsed to form the two

groups of ELL and Non-ELL students. When looking at the observational data on onlooking

behaviors, it is evident that females of both ELL and Non-ELL student groups spent more time

45

engaging in such behavior. While this could be interpreted in a number of ways, it is not

negligent of gender stereotypical behavior. On almost all of observational criteria, teachers

engaged in more frequent and variant types of interaction with female students regardless of ELL

or Non-ELL group membership. This supports the claim that females receive more verbal

stimulation from preschool years on to adolescence (Peterson & Roberts, 2003).

Despite the limitations of the current study, the findings contributed to the literature by

examining teacher-student relationships and interactions in a comparative manner. To date, few

studies have been conducted on this topic using primary methods of data collection, using both

self-report and observational tools, making this study unique and timely. While interactions

themselves were not substantially different, the data posits the question of whether gender is a

more important factor than the language we speak. Further, this study has lent greater insights

into the experiences of teachers, ELL students and Non-ELL students in the classroom. The

differences within these relationships and interactions have a number of causes and

consequences that demand the attention of both individual educators and teacher education

programs.

Conclusions

Although the sample size was small, the fact that more than half of the teachers surveyed

felt inadequately prepared to instruct ELL students speaks volumes. Of the teachers observed, it

was found that while all felt it was their responsibility to instruct ELLs in their classroom, 60%

felt inadequately prepared for this task. How might this perception impact their teaching

practices and classroom climate? As classroom process quality is composed of safe care,

healthful care, developmentally appropriate stimulation, positive interaction with adults,

encouragement of individual emotional growth, and promotion of positive relationships with

46

other children (Tietze et al.,1996), teachers’ feelings of inadequacy can impact each of these

elements in a detrimental fashion. As most of the teachers surveyed held at least a four-year

degree in education or a related field, it is essential to examine the quality of these teacher

education programs in terms of preparing their constituents to accommodate for the specific

needs of special populations within their classrooms.

Little less than half of the teachers surveyed had instruction regarding the ELL

population merged throughout several courses in their teacher education programs, and less than

one-fourth were required to enroll in a cultural education course. Should teacher education

programs in North Carolina and across the nation reevaluate their requirements and incorporate

more education regarding this population, it would be met with great enthusiasm.

Approximately 94.7% of the teachers indicated an interest in enrollment in more culture,

diversity and language based classes, had they been made available. A percentage of such

magnitude, in even a small sample, makes a valued statement. While classes concentrating on

culture, diversity and language are no doubt rampant within a university setting, the fact that they

are not required elements of teacher education programs leaves much to be desired in terms of

preparation for instruction of the ELL population in the professional sectors. Appropriations of

similar classes could be easily implemented in the fine arts and humanities requirements of

general education that most accredited universities uphold. Such courses would satisfy both

hours necessary for the fine arts and humanities requirements and more sufficiently prepare

future educators. However, this also brings about the idea that education does not always ensure

preparation. Teachers may enroll and excel in a number of these courses and never feel truly

prepared to teach this population.

47

Additionally, less than half of the teachers reported having professional development

hours that were devoted specifically to instructing the ELL population. Increasing educational

standards, high stakes achievement testing, and pressures to perform duties in timely and

satisfactorily manners entail a great deal of teachers’ and administrative time and attention.

These elements are of mounting importance but at the cost of professional development topics

that could prove useful in the actual classroom. Support within the field is a necessary, all-be-it

time consuming, element of the education system. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to

incorporate not only useful but practical topics for professional development hours that will

benefit both teachers and students alike. While classroom and school environments are

dependent upon a variety of components, providing tailored support for both students and

teachers is vital to help enhance the performance of each party within the classroom (Han &

Bridglall, 2009).

Recommendations

Merits of this study include that it 1) was a mixed methods design, using both self-report

and observational measures; 2) used detailed demographics in order to select schools based on

possible ELL populations, and classrooms based on an array of teacher and classroom

characteristics. A limitation to this study is the sample size. For both portions of data collection,

sample size remained small at 19 teachers returning surveys and only five teachers being

observed in their classroom environment. While the differences in relationships and interactions

that teachers maintain with both ELL and Non-ELL students in their classrooms are found to be

statistically significant, it would be difficult to generalize these results to the larger population

due to the small sample size. More participants would yield more reliable results. This could be

achieved by broadening the search criteria for initial school inclusions and reaching a wider span

48

of North Carolina counties. Additionally, the surveys used were a self-reported measure of the

teachers’ relationships with their students. Therefore it is difficult to determine if all responses

provided for each student are an accurate depiction of the student-teacher relationship. In a

future study, multiple tools could be utilized to assess teacher-student relationships and

interactions, including ethnographic field notes. Finally, the observational method of data

collection was a one-time measure over the course of a three hour period. As a future direction,

multiple observational periods could be conducted within each classroom to ensure that results

are indicative of the true interactions that occur in the classroom over a period of a week, month,

or year rather than just one day. It would also be of note to further explore gender differences in

the classroom.

REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D. (2005). Language minority students in American schools: An education in

English. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

August, D., & Garcia, E. E. (1998). Language minority education in the United States:

Research, policy, and practice. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Batt, E. G. (2008). Teacher's perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome

the greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 40, 39-43.

Black, S. (2005). Easing ESL students into learning English well. American School

Board Journal, 192, 36-40.

Bordens, K., & Abbott, B. B. (2008). Research design and methods: A process approach. New

York, NY; McGraw-Hill.

Boss, P.G., Doherty, W. J., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1993).

Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York, NY:

Plenum.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on

human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Carrison, C., & Ernst-Slavit, G. (2005). From silence to a whisper to active

participation: Using literature circles with ELL students. Reading Horizons, 46, 94-113.

Chamot, A. U. (1983). Toward a functional ESL curriculum in the elementary school.

TESOL Quarterly, 17, 459-471.

Clair, N. (1995). Mainstream classroom teachers and ESL students. TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 189-196.

50

Collins, W. A., Madsen, S. D., & Susman-Stillman, A. (2002). Parenting during middle

childhood. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed.). (Vol. 1: Children and

parenting). (pp. 73-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cryer, D., Tietze, W., Burchinal, M., Leal, T., & Palacios, J. (1999). Predicting process

quality from structural quality in preschool programs: A cross-country comparison. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 339-361.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for

Bilingual Education.

Curtin, E. A. (2005a). Instructional styles used by regular classroom teachers while

teaching recently mainstreamed ESL students: Six urban middle school teachers in Texas

share their experience and perceptions. Multicultural Education, 12, 36-42.

Curtin, E. A. (2005b). Teaching practices for ESL students. Multicultural Education, 12, 22-

27.

Dardjowidjojo, S. (2001). Cultural constraints in the implementation of learner autonomy:

The case in Indonesia. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(2), 309-322.

De Jong, E. J., & Harper, C.A. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language

learners: Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 101-

124.

DelliCarpini, M. (2008). Success with Ells: Working with English language learners: Looking

back, moving forward. The English Journal, 98, 98-101.

51

Downer, J. T., López, M. L., Grimm, K. J., Hamagami, A., Pianta, R. C., & Howes, C.

(2012). Observations of teacher–child interactions in classrooms serving Latinos and dual

language learners: Applicability of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System in diverse

settings, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 21-32.

Encyclopedia. (2012). Self-fulfilling prophecy. Retrieved from Encyclopedia website:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/self-fulfilling_prophecy.aspx

Ernst-Slavit, G., Moore, M., & Maloney, C. (2002). Changing lives: Teaching English and

literature to ESL students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 116-128.

Garcia, E. (1999). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge

Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in

a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247-273.

Gibbons, P. (2008). “It was taught good and I learned a lot”: Intellectual practices and

ESL learners in the middle years. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 155-

173.

Hammond, J. (2008a). Challenging pedagogies: Engaging ESL students in intellectual

quality. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 101-105.

Hammond, J. (2008b). Intellectual challenge and ESL students: Implications of

quality teaching initiatives. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 31, 128-154.

Han, W. J., & Bridglall, B. L. (2009). Assessing school supports for ELL students

using the ECLS-K. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 445-462.

Harklau, L. (1994). ESL versus mainstream classes: Contrasting L2 learning environments.

TESOL Quarterly, 28, 241-272.

52

Honigsfeld, A. (2009). ELL programs: Not ‘one size fits all’. Kappa Delta Record, 166- 171.

Jacobson, L. (2007). Early education advocates face tougher sell. Education Week, 27, 16.

Krashen, S. (1992). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York, NY:

Pergamon.

Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2012). Social development theory. Retrieved from

http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html

Ledford, J. R., Gast, D. L., Luscre, D., & Ayres, K. M. (2008). Observational and incidental

learning by children with autism. Journal of Autism Development Discord, 38, 86-103.

Lueck, C. E. (2010). ELL parents’ perceptions matter. The Delta Kappa Gamma

Bulletin, 77, 9-14.

Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D.,

Burnchinal, M., Early, D. M., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in

prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skill

Child Development, 79, 732-749.

Maxwell, L. A. (2011). Teachers urged to listen to ELL students. Education Week, 4.

Mesa-Baines, A., & Shulman, J. H. (1994). Diversity in the classroom: A casebook for

teachers and teacher educators. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Miller, P. C., & Endo, H. (2004). Understanding and meeting the needs of ESL

students. The Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 786-791.

North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education. (2012). North Carolina

pre-kindergarten (NC Pre-K) program requirements and guidance. Retrieved from:

http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/NCPre-

ProgramRequirements_08_15_2011.pdf

53

Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolded instruction for English language

learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1450-1462.

Penfield, J. (1987). The regular classroom teacher’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 21-

39.

Peterson, C., & Roberts, C. (2003). Like mother, like daughter: Similarities in narrative style.

Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 551-562.

Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process

quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12,

281-303.

Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Pianta, R. C. (2001). Student–teacher relationship scale; Professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Platt, E., Harper, C., & Mendoza, M. B. (2003). Dueling philosophies: Inclusion or

separation for Florida’s English language learners? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 105-133.

Public School Review. (2012). North Carolina Public Schools. Retrieved from:

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/public_schools/stateid/NC

Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M., &Weiser, B. (2001). Emerging academic

snapshot. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Department of Education.

Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development:

Instructional implications. English Language Teaching, 3, 237-248.

Sheraga, M. (1980). ESL with advanced high school students. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 41-52.

54

Strang, W., Winglee, M., & Stunkard, J. (1993). Characteristics of secondary school-age

language minority and limited English proficient youth. Final analytic report.

Washington, D.C. Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs.

Teale, W. (2009). Students learning English and their literacy instruction in urban

schools. The Reading Teacher, 62, 699-703.

Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrão, J., Palacios, J., & Wetzel, G. (1996). Comparison of observed

process quality in early child care and education programs in five countries. Early

Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 447-475.

United States Census Bureau. (2013). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html

United States Department of Education. (2012). No child left behind. Retrieved from:

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml

Vacca-Rizopoulos, L. A., & Nicoletti, A. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ reflections on

effective strategies for teaching Latino ESL students. Journal of Latinos and Education,

8, 67-76.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and

authenticity. London: Longman.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press.

Wertheimer, C., & Honigsfeld, A. (2000). Preparing ESL students to meet the new standards.

TESOL Quarterly, 9, 23-28.

55

White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2008). Systems framework. Family theories (pp. 1-31). Los

Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers’ attitudes

toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 97-120.

APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) APPROVAL

APPENDIX B: PRINCIPALS’ INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

APPENDIX C: TEACHERS’ INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

Dear Participant,

I am a graduate student at East Carolina University’s Department of Child Development and

Family Relations. I am asking you to take part in my research study entitled, “Interactions and

Relationships between Kindergarten teachers and English Language Learners.”

Interactions between teachers and children have been found to have an impact on children’s

development; therefore, information regarding these interactions could prove invaluable (Han &

Bridglall, 2009). The main purpose of this study is to examine kindergarten teachers’ relationships and

interactions between ELL and non-ELL students. By doing this research, I hope to learn how teachers’

relationships and interactions compare between ELL and non-ELL students. Your participation in this

study is completely voluntary.

You are being invited to take part in this research because of the ELL presence in your classroom. The

amount of time it will take you to complete this study is approximately one to two days total.

This is a two part study. First, you will be asked to complete brief surveys; demographic (entails

questions regarding teacher education and training, and classroom make-up) and the Student Teacher

Relationship scale (STRS) for each student in your classroom.

You will be given these surveys during researcher’s first visit. You will have a day or more to complete

these surveys and completed surveys will be returned in a self-addressed envelope. All consenting

teachers will complete and return these surveys. Finally, once all surveys have been returned, you may be

one of 15 teachers, chosen out of a total of 30 teachers involved in this study, for a one-time observation

of your interaction with your students. The sole purpose of this observation is to view and record

observations occurring between teacher and the ELL students. Researcher will not interrupt or participate

within any of the ongoing classroom activities.

If the researcher is awarded the grant money, then there is a built in incentives for the teachers. Each

teacher completing the surveys will get a 15 dollar gift card from Wal-Mart/Target. Further, teachers

considered for observations will be awarded another 15 dollar gift card for allowing and cooperating with

the researcher.

Because this research is overseen by the ECU Institutional Review Board, some of its members or staff

may need to review my research data. However, the information you provide will coded so it cannot be

linked to you in any way. Therefore, your responses cannot be traced back to you by anyone, including

me.

If you have questions about your rights as someone taking part in research, you may call the UMCIRB

Office at phone number 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00 pm). If you would like to report a complaint

or concern about this research study, you may call the Director of UMCIRB Office, at 252-744-1971.

You do not have to take part in this research, and you can stop at any time. If you decide you are willing

to take part in this study, continue on with the following survey.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my research.

Sincerely,

Brittany N. Sullivan, Principal Investigator

APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY

Date: ___________

Please complete the following:

I. Personal Characteristics

____ Gender _____________________Race/Ethnicity

____ Age _________ Length of residency in North Carolina

Languages in which you are fluent, aside from English ________________________________

II. Education Level: (please check one)

____ Did not complete high school ____ 4 yr. EC/CD degree

____ High school diploma ____ 4 yr. Education degree

____ NC Early Childhood Credential/CDA ____ 4 yr. degree in related field

____ Some college course work < 30 credit hours Specify_____________

____ 1 year community college diploma ____ 4 yr. degree in other field

____ 2 year AA degree Specify_____________

____ 2 year AAS degree ____ some graduate coursework

____ Graduate degree

From what institution was this degree received _______________________________________

III. Licensure: (please check one)

____ Birth to Kindergarten

____ B-K Add-on ____ Pre-K Add-on

____ Elementary ____ Special Education ____ CDA

____ Other; Specify: ___________________

____ No licensure

IV. Experience:

Number of years of experience in education field ___________

Number of years at this particular school __________________

Number of years teaching Pre-Kindergarten________________

Number of years teaching Kindergarten ___________________

Number of months with this particular group of Students ____________

Classroom Information

I. Classroom Makeup

Number of Children in class __________________

Number of Boys ____________________________

Number of Girls ____________________________

60

Number of students with IEPs__________________

Types of needs______________________________________________________________

Number of children whose primary language is not English (English Language Learner/ELL) ______

Primary Languages of these students _________________________________________________

II. Services provided to students

Are intervention services provided to ELL students within your classroom?

____________Yes ______________No

If yes, please specify______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Are any of these services provided outside of your classroom? __________Yes __________No

If yes, please specify______________________________________________________________

How many of your ELL students are pulled out for intervention services (i.e., resource, primary

reading teacher, volunteer programs, etc.)

______ / ______ Students

Professional Information

I. Language Exposure

Experience with children/individuals whose primary language is not English:

________________None ________________Limited _________________Varied

Where have you gained experience with these populations? (Check all that apply)

____________Summer camp experience ______________Practicum experiences in college

____________Volunteer Work ______________Paid employment position

____________ Church activities ______________ Study Abroad experience

____________Family Members ______________Friends/acquaintances

____________None ______________Other, Specify:________________

II. Training

ELL Training

In your teacher preparation program, did you receive instruction regarding English Language

Learners through a required course? _____ Yes _____ No

If yes, number of courses _______ Course Names: ____________________________

In your teacher preparation program, was a course required focused on teaching students of

culturally diverse backgrounds? _____ Yes _____ No

If yes, number of courses _______ Course Names: ____________________________

In your teacher preparation program, did you receive information relating to ELL students merged

throughout a variety of courses? _____ Yes _____ No

61

If coursework was not required, would you have enrolled in any had it been available?

_____ Yes _____ No

In your teacher preparation program, did you participate in any practicums or field experience?

_____ Yes _____ No

Please elaborate __________________________________________________

Would you participate in professional development regarding ELL students if offered?

_____ Yes _____ No

Does your employer offer professional development regarding ELL students?

_____ Yes _____ No

If so, do you participate? _____ Yes _____ No

Number of hours of professional development regarding ELL students completed throughout

career ___________

Is participation in Professional Development encouraged in your school? ___ Yes ___ No

Do you feel educating ELL students is your responsibility in your classroom?

_____ Yes _____ No

Do you feel adequately prepared to teach ELL students in your classroom?

_____ Yes _____ No

APPENDIX E: STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS SCALE

Please reflect on the degree to which each of the following statements currently applies to your

relationship with this student. Circle the appropriate number for each item.

Def

init

ely

do

es n

ot

ap

ply

N

ot

reall

y

Neu

tral,

no

t

sure

Ap

pli

es

som

ewh

at

Def

init

ely

ap

pli

es

a. I share an affectionate, warm relationship with this child. 1 2 3 4 5

b. This child and I always seem to be struggling with each

other.

1 2 3 4 5

c. If upset, this child will seek comfort from me. 1 2 3 4 5

d. This child is uncomfortable with physical affection or

touch from me.

1 2 3 4 5

e. This child values his/her relationship with me. 1 2 3 4 5

f. When I praise this child, he/she beams with pride. 1 2 3 4 5

g. This child spontaneously shares information about

himself/herself.

1 2 3 4 5

h. This child easily becomes angry at me. 1 2 3 4 5

i. It is easy to be in tune with what this student is feeling. 1 2 3 4 5

j. This child remains angry or is resistant after being

disciplined.

1 2 3 4 5

k. Dealing with this child drains my energy. 1 2 3 4 5

l. When this child arrives in a bad mood, I know we’re in for

a long and difficult day.

1 2 3 4 5

m. This child’s feelings toward me can be unpredictable or

can change suddenly.

1 2 3 4 5

n. This child is sneaky or manipulative with me. 1 2 3 4 5

o. This child openly shares his/her feelings and experience

with me.

1 2 3 4 5

© Pianta, 2001

APPENDIX F: PERMISSION TO INCLUDE EMERGING ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT

CODING TEMPLATES

APPENDIX G: EMERGING ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT CODEBOOK

Below you will find a definition for each section and category on the child observation

codesheet. Examples appear where applicable.

Disengaged: SELECT ZERO OR ONE CODE

If this section is coded, you may not code any other section EXCEPT for Activity Setting. If

there is any kind of engagement or interaction that can be coded, it will supercede this code. If

an adult speaks to the child while they are distracted, then the code is for adult interaction NOT

for disengaged.

Distracted: Code if the child is:

not doing what the rest of the group is doing and is not focused on the assigned activity. The

child may be aimlessly wandering or “spaced out.” Code also if the child is placed in “time-out”

if the child is facing a wall or is “spacing out” while in time-out.

Onlooker: Code if the child:

has a one-way awareness of a peer but there is no mutual interest in objects. This child is

"looking on" to another child's activity/interaction. This category does not refer to onlooking to

an adult. A child is also coded as an onlooker if she/he is placed in "time-out" by the teacher, but

is looking on at his/her peers. For instance, a child may be placed in time-out and made to sit

only a few feet away from his/her peers and allowed to watch from this distance.

Activity Setting: SELECT ONLY ONE CODE (EXCEPT WHEN DOUBLE-C0DED WITH

OUTSIDE TIME)

This set of codes captures the ACTIVITY that the teacher has prepared for the children OR for

the TARGET CHILD if the activity is different from the rest of the group.

Use only small groups, not Whole Group when conducting snapshots in FCC homes.

Routine: Code when a child is engaged in:

toileting, standing in line, clean-up time, wait time between activities, waiting for materials to be

passed out.

Meals-Snacks: Code when child is engaged in:

eating lunch, breakfast or snacks, or is enjoying food that the class cooked during a cooking

project.

65

Whole Group Time: Code when a child is engaged with:

the whole group in a teacher-initiated activity. Activities can include stories, songs, calendar

instruction, discussions, book reading, demonstrations. The child’s focus is on the teacher.

This may include structured PE activities on the playground.

Free Choice Center: Code when a child is engaged in:

free choice activities. During this time children are able to select what and where they would

like to play or learn. Activities can include individual art projects, blocks, pretend area, puzzles,

reading, puppets, computers, science areas, etc. The key here is that children have chosen their

activities. It does not matter if the activity they have chosen is individual or in a small group. It

does not matter if the activity is with or without the teacher.

Individual Time: Code when the child has:

been assigned to work individually with or without teachers, on worksheets, independent

projects, computer work etc. This is coded when this is the activity setting for the whole class or

for a small group in which the target child is involved.

Small Group Time: Code when child is engaged in:

small group activities that are teacher organized. Teacher organized means that the teacher

decides what children are to be doing and assigns which children participate, even if the teacher

is not participating in the group. These can include group art projects, writing stories, collective

building, cooking projects, small group instruction, science experiments, structured PE activities,

etc. May be coded when all children in the class are doing the same thing, but under the direction

of teachers in smaller groupings.

A small group is coded as long as there are 2 or more children and the teacher has directed the

activity or dictated what they are to be doing (see note under "Activity Settings” above)

Outside Time: Code when a child is:

OUTSIDE, regardless of what s/he is doing. This will always be double-coded with another

Activity Setting.

Child Engagement: SELECT ZERO, ONE, OR MORE CODES

This section captures children’s engagement in learning activities. The target child can be

passively or actively engaged in all codes with the exception of gross and fine motor.

Read To: Code when a child is:

being read to by an adult. Code this category when a teacher is engaged in reading books, and

stories. or engaged in talking about the author, showing the cover, or asking questions about the

book/story. This does NOT include reading sentences or single words outside the context of a

story.

66

Pre-Read/Read: Code when a child is:

reading on her/his own or with peers, listening to a book on tape while looking at a book,

involved in a sequencing activity, or recognition of whole words. Essentially this is a WHOLE

LANGUAGE engagement for children. Includes flannel board stories.

Sequencing that is related to math is NOT a literacy activity and is NOT coded under pre-read.

Note: Consider the content of the books as this may be double-coded with social studies or

science.

Letter/Sound Learning: Code when a child is:

practicing rhymes that help her/him recognize sounds, talking about sound-letter relationships,

identifying letters, sounding out words or practicing vowel sounds,. Essentially this is about

PHONEMIC awareness.

Oral Language Development: Code when a child is:

involved in an activity or an interaction where a teacher is taking action to draw

communication from the children to build expressive language or is actively listening to

children speak, by allowing them to complete their thoughts. This will always be coded with

Scaffold when it is about learning vocabulary. In this case it might be Didactic (or both). The

teacher may be:

asking children questions (typically questions are open-ended and not eliciting yes/no

answers

helping children expand on their thoughts, express feelings, or resolve conflict.

involved in verbal social interaction with the children, asking them about their lives or

their activities.

Helping children learn or practice new vocabulary. (often coded for second language

learners)

Note 1: Oral Language Development is not merely giving instructions, nor is it

coded when children are merely reciting or repeating words after the teacher.

Note 2: Is often, but not always coded with SCAFFOLD

Writing: Code when a child is:

writing, pretending to write, using a computer keyboard, or calculator, doing alphabet letter

puzzles, writing his/her name, incorporating writing into play, such as writing grocery lists or

taking orders. Also code for tracing

Note: This category encompasses writing of both numbers and letters. This will often be

double-coded with Fine Motor.

67

Math: Code when a child is:

rote counting, counting with 1:1 correspondence, skip counting, identifying written numerals

matching numbers to pictures, making graphs, playing counting games (e.g.: dice, dominoes,

Candyland, Chutes and Ladders), keeping track of how many days until a special event, counting

marbles in a jar, playing Concentration or Memory with numbers. Also code

when child is identifying shapes, talking about the properties of shapes (e.g. how many sides),

finding shapes in the room, identifying same and different, quantitative comparing

(e.g.: big/little, biggest), sorting (by color, size, shape), discerning patterns (red , blue, red, blue),

measuring for cooking or size. Please code anything that has to do with the CALENDAR,

even if it does not expressly refer to numbers, it is still a concept of TIME.

Science: Code when a child is:

identifying and exploring natural phenomena in their environment (bugs, leaves, weather), using

science equipment (mirrors, magnets, magnifying glasses), working with sand or water (note:

using funnels, pouring, sifting, packing sand for molds or castles). Includes reading books that

identify or talk about animals, body parts, life-cycle of the butterfly, birth, foods and nutrition,

class pets (in which case this should be double-coded with READ TO or PRE-READING). The

child may be planting seeds, gathering rocks. The child may hypothesize, guess, estimate.

She/he may be engaged in trial and error or experimentation, such as figuring out how to use

features on a computer or how to solve a problem (such as how to open a box or fix something

that is broken). Includes exploration of the senses: smell, touch, taste, sound, vision. When

young children are playing with BLOCKS, they are sometimes just experimenting with

horizontal and vertical building. Code for BLOCKS in SCIENCE when they are doing this

instead of building actual buildings

Social Studies: Code when a child is: engaged with the intern in:

talking about, reading about, or engaged in activities that inform them about their world (their

neighborhood, their school, the farm, the community workers). May include block structures

and it may include art work where children are drawing buildings or parts of the community.

May include fantasy play, dress-up, or role-playing of family members, police officers,

firefighters, doctors. May include discussions of cultural diversity, skin color, different family

practices (what different families eat, what holidays they celebrate, family configurations). May

include discussions or books about stereotypes, prejudice, and bias based on ethnicity, gender,

age, or physical challenges. All religious studies are included in this category. Pledge of

Allegiance should be coded here.

Aesthetics: Code when a child is:

engaged in art or music activities. Children may be painting, illustrating stories, sharing art

work, making original drawings, using pastels or watercolors, modeling with clay or play doh,,

making collages, making jewelry. Children may be listening to music (double-code with other

activity if teacher purposefully has music playing during other activities), using musical

instruments, dancing, or taking arts in a play.

68

Gross Motor: Code when a child is:

involved in gross motor activities such as running, skipping, jumping, swinging, riding bikes, or

playing games such as basketball, catch, run and chase, or bean bag throw. This also includes

dancing and musical chairs, which should be double-coded with AESTHETICS. Gross Motor

involves movement of the whole body. Do not code when a child is just moving briefly from

place to place. This does not include physical contact that could result in injury. This can take

place both inside and outside.

Fine Motor: Code when a child is:

stringing beads, building with Legos, cutting, using crayons and markers or paint brushes,

pencils or pens.. This will often be double-coded with another activity. Code use of pincer

grasp. (This does not include computer keyboards or use of the mouse)

Adult Interaction: SELECT ZERO OR ONE CODE

Code only when there is one-on-one teacher-child interaction (can be physical or verbal)

This section reflects the level of complexity of the teacher’s 1:1 interaction with the target child.

These categories are listed from least to most complex. Choose only the code that reflects the

highest level of interaction reached in that interval, regardless of duration. The interactions may

be positive or negative. The valence will not be captured here but will be picked up in the

CLASS.

Routine: Code if the teacher:

interacts with target child during routine caregiving (opens a milk container, passes out

materials) but does not verbally interact with the child.

Minimal: Code if the teacher:

responds to target child’s direct requests for help or gives verbal directives with no reply

encouraged. Teacher verbally responds with a few words (“okay,” “that’s right,” “good,” “stop

that!,” “sit down!”, “yes she is”).

Simple: Code if the teacher:

answers target child’s verbal bids but does not elaborate or if the teacher asks child simple

questions. Teacher responds to child with short sentences (“Yes, you need to glue that piece,”

“You’re doing such a good job!,” “I’m tired of your noise,” “Where did you get that?”). Teacher

may be providing simple instructions on how to begin an activity. Teacher may use gestures

such as a big smile, thumbs up or a frown, glare, or eye-rolling.

69

Elaborated: Code if the teacher:

engages in physical contact (high fives, hugs or holds child, yanks or grabs child, responds to a

child who goes to him/her for affection or physical contact not an incidental pat or nudge),

engages in reciprocal conversation that either validates a child’s feelings or demonstrates teacher

interest in what the child is saying. The teacher asks questions, gives the child a chance to

express her/his interests or ideas, plays interactively with the child, or expands play or

engagement in activities by playing with the child or by suggesting additional materials or new

ideas for a game or learning activity. When children initiate a physical interaction with a

teacher but there is no response from the teacher, do not code Elaborated For adult-interaction codes, you must code only what occurs within the 20 second time interval

that you are observing. For example, if teacher is listening intently to a child but only says a few

words in response, then you would code this as minimal or simple, not elaborated.

Teacher-Child Engagement: SELECT ZERO, ONE, OR MORE CODES

This section complements the “Adult Interaction” section and provides more detail about the

specific ways in which teachers interact with students in the classroom.

Note: Use the following codes if target child is individually engaged with the teacher OR

if s/he is a participant in the group with which the teacher is working.

Scaffolds: The defining characteristic is if the teacher shows an awareness of an individual

child’s needs and responds in a manner that supports and expands the child’s learning.

Code if the teacher

is utilizing the curiosity or interest of the child

uses child’s initiations as an opportunity to add to his/her learning.

asks open-ended questions,

motivates through personal engagement (plays with the child-does not just

demonstrate or model)

helps child expand on his answers and thoughts

works to link classroom activities to child’s life and experiences.

asks the child questions or poses problems that have multiple solutions, including

conflict resolution.

Is actively engaged in listening to child

Didactic: Code if the teacher is doing any of the following:

providing instructions or giving information without interaction with the children.

There is no reciprocity. The teacher talks, the children listen.

modeling or demonstrating. The teacher is showing the children how to do something

and there is just one way to do it.

asking children questions or posing problems that have ONE CORRECT ANSWER.

Teacher tries to lead the children to the correct answer. She is looking for precise

words or precise numbers to answer the question or solve the problem.

engaging children in rote activities such as counting or saying the days of the week,

or practicing with flash cards.

giving rules of conduct or lecturing about behavior or social expectations.

70

Second Language: Code if the teacher is:

speaking in a language other than English or if she is moving back and forth between English

and another language Sign language is coded This will be double-coded with other Teacher-

Child Engagement codes.

© Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser

APPENDIX H: EMERGENT ACADEMICS SNAPSHOT CODESHEET

Children Names/ID#"s: _________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Provider/teacher names & ID#________________________ Date: _____________________ Program & ID#________________________ Observer ___________________

Se

lect

0 o

r 1

co

de

s Disengaged 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Distracted

Onlooker Activity Setting 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Se

lect

on

ly 1

co

de

(exce

pt

w/o

uts

ide

tim

e)

Routine

Meals/snacks

Whole group time

Free choice/center

Individual time

Small group time

Outside time Child Eng. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Read to

Se

lect

0,

1,

or

mo

re c

od

es

Pre-read/read

Letter/sound

Oral lang develop

Chatting

Writing

Math

Science

Social Studies

Aesthetics

Gross Motor

Fine Motor

Multiple

One answer Adult ID Adult Interaction 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Routine

Minimal

Simple

Elaborated Teacher-child Eng. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Se

lect

1 o

r

mo

re c

od

es Organization

Encourages

Scaffolds

Didactic

Second Language

© Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser

72